MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400505086 · doi:10.5430/wjel.v14n6p171

University Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions on Autonomous English Learning: A Case of a Private University in Vietnam

2024· article· en· W4400505086 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Han Van Ho, Yen Thi Hai Pham

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of English Language · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSecond Language Learning and Teaching
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionMathematics educationAutonomous learningPsychologyComputer scienceSociologyMedical educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding teachers' perspectives on learner autonomy is essential for addressing issues related to autonomous learning, as these perspectives heavily influence instructional approaches and consequently impact the learning experiences of students. With regard to students' perceptions of their English language learning, they are not solely dependent on the teacher; instead, they take ownership of the decisions guiding their own learning process. To promote learner autonomy effectively, educators must simultaneously confront their own apprehensions about relinquishing some control over the classroom environment and improve their communication skills with students. The paper used mixed-method which combined between quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze how the teachers’ and students’ perspectives on autonomous English learning through their teaching and learning styles. The paper surveyed 1000 students and 40 English teachers, all of whom participated voluntarily in the survey. The study aims to assess the specific objectives (1) the level of learner autonomy among a private university (2) the perceptions of English teachers regarding learner autonomy (3) the perceptions of English-majored students regarding learner autonomy (4) the strategies and methods employed in promoting learner autonomy. The findings suggested that the students should enhance their self-directed learning and take more responsibility for their own learning to meet the program's learning outcomes and increase the teachers’ satisfaction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of English LanguageSame topicSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench-language works237,207